Left Wing Reactions to Edwards Story About What You'd Expect

"I think this President has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen."--John Edwards during the Clinton Lewinsky scandal as dug up by Matt Welch.

Read the quote above and then wallow in this as written by some scrub named Joe Sudbay from Americablog:

Okay. For the record, I really don't care who sleeps with whom -- as long as the person isn't a hypocrite. But, this long-rumored story is now sweeping through the traditional and online media. I debated whether even to post this revelation, but we're adults and it's news. It's out there. I'm not condemning Edwards. I don't care. But, if the GOPers or the traditional media decide to make a big issue out of this one, I have one question: Where's Vicki Iseman?

Well Joe, regardless if you care who sleeps with whom or if you don't, that quote above makes Edwards a 100%, low-down, scumbag hypocrite now doesn't it?

As for Vicki Iseman, she was purported to be McCain's lover in a NY Times piece that has been discredited for quite some time. The piece was unsourced and both parties have said it was untrue.

Now let's think about this Joe old buddy, if it were true, don't you think the intrepid media--the media who did not even so much as make a phone call in the Edwards issue--would have had at least an iota of evidence? The media who support your causes was beaten to the biggest story of the summer by the National Enquirer (and Micky Kaus) for crying out loud and your only response is Vicki Iseman?

Pretty pathetic, dude. But then, I've grown accustomed to lame spin emanating from the liberal blogs of late for the pathetic campaign Obama has has run so it's not too surprising in this case.

Update: Gotta love those "nuanced" libs reading and commenting to lil' Joe. This psycho is my personal favorite:

Where's Vicki Iseman?

Uh, it's a fairly safe bet she is dead, and the body destroyed.

That's how The REAL GOP operates.

We are seeing the REAL GOP in action at this time,on behalf of McCain.

Slam-dunk.

Yo Nikto, dude, you still haven't figured out our M.O. have you. We don't kill, we just buy them off to go away. But when we have to resort to actually offing them, well, let's just say the people who whacked Hoffa were amateurs. There will be no bodies found in DC parks in a McCain administration I can tell you that! (sarcasm off).

John Edwards Admits Affair to ABC

He's still not coming completely clean in my opinion and he takes an oily tack:

According to friends of Hunter, Edwards met her at a New York city bar in 2006. His political action committee later paid her $114,000 to produce campaign website documentaries despite her lack of experience.

Edwards said the affair began during the campaign after she was hired. Hunter traveled with Edwards around the country and to Africa.

Edwards made a point of telling (Bob) Woodruff that his wife's cancer was in remission when he began the affair with Hunter. Elizabeth Edwards has since been diagnosed with an incurable form of the disease.

And because his wifes cancer was in remission it made it better because why? He broke a sacred pact with your wife who had suffered through cancer and the death of a child because he couldn't keep it in his pants, plain and simple. That is unforgivable in any circumstance.

The fact that Rielle Hunter is an absolute flake is also disconcerting as it appears the man who was a few percentage points from being VP is too mentally weak to control himself and also has questionable taste in women he chooses to fool around with. Yeah, I think a guy who meets his mistress in a bar is an excellent candidate for President or VP.

Edwards said he told his wife, Elizabeth, and others in his family about the affair in 2006.

...Edwards today admitted the National Enquirer was correct when it reported he had visited Hunter at the Beverly Hills Hilton last month.

The former Senator said his wife had not known about the meeting.

Which of course brings up the question: If the affair is over and he isn't the father of the baby, why the hell was he sneaking into and out of Rielle Hunter's hotel room in the early morning hours?

He also says he told his wife about the affair in 2006 but still forced her--while suffering from cancer--to go on the campaign trail with him and then lied to her about visiting the woman he cheated on her with. He needs to get spiritual guidance from Jesse Jackson, and soon, so the media can say he atoned for his sins. Old Jesse may even give you few tips on the love child thing.

He's pulling a classic Bill Clinton here. Deny, deny, deny and then admit what little you have to when caught. This guy is mining new depths of scumbaggery heretofore never seen.

I imagine the media will have no choice but to cover the story now, don't ya think? Boy did they come out of this whole sordid affair looking like exactly what Conservatives have been accusing them of being all these years: biased beyond all hope.

Update: As expected, the spin begins. The Carpetbagger Report rips Micky Kaus (who has been shown to be right--yet doesn't gloat). This idiot blames Edwards not for the affair or the immorality but for believing he could get away with it. This guy, who evidently isn't a MENSA member, calls McCain a "serial adulterer" and mourns for the loss of this passionate voice. Yeah dude, he was evidently quite passionate.

The interesting--but not unexpected thread--that runs through all the lib responses is that they take him to task for putting himself in position to get caught yet none even condemn him for cheating or his sick wife. Politics trumps morality for the libs. Priorities folks, priorities.

Update 2: Allah has much, much more including my personal favorite where David Shuster portrays the media as victim.

News & Notes--8/8/8 Edition

The Olympics start today and China gets her time on the world stage. Here's to hoping it has the same effect as the Seoul Olympics did.

Anyway, here's the latest happenings throughout the Internets:

The Russian bear is getting froggy in South Ossetia. Putin (and don't kid yourself, he's still calling the shots through his proxy) is still a Soviet to the bone and will always be. Could Cold War II be on the horizon?

The new Obama salute:













As soon as I saw it it brought to mind this image from Pink Floyd's epic The Wall:









I was beaten to the punch, however. Via Glenn who notes a Star Trek angle. Update: Too damn funny!

The Edwards/Rielle Hunter story is still in first gear but the clutch is being depressed.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio Vs. the ACLU. I take Arpaio in that one.

Blogging will be light as I'm taking a few well-deserved days off.

National Enquirer Releases Edwards Photos

They are fuzzy and as Ed notes, there are some issue with them but the NE released the picture below of what is allegedly John Edwards holding his alleged baby in the Beverly Hills hotel room of Rielle Hunter:

It's not quite the slam-dunk evidence the NE had us believe they had and it is presented with typical tabloid splash but it is pretty convincing that it is indeed Edwards.

That said, why has he not addressed this issue in a forthright manner? There's only two possible reasons; a) he innocent and believes he is above this and doesn't have to explain himself to anyone, or b) he's guilty as hell and knows it will come out in due time and to claim innocence when he's not would make things infinitely worse. Think Bill Clinton's infamous "I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" lie.

I'm guessing it's the latter.

This story is going to break and Sen. Obama best hope it's after the Denver convention. That doesn't seem to be a great strategy as the story is breaking through the media collusion to contain it:

“He absolutely does have to (resolve it). If it’s not true, he has to issue a stronger denial,” said Gary Pearce, the Democratic strategist who ran Edwards’ 1998 Senate race. “It’s a very damaging thing. ...

“The big media has tried to be responsible and handle this with kid gloves, but it’s clearly getting ready to bust out. If it’s not true, he’s got to stand up and say, ’This is not true. That is not my child and I’m going to take legal action against the people who are spreading these lies.’ It’s not enough to say, ’That’s tabloid trash,’“ Pearce said.

Again, the fact he has not even partially confronted this says more than any words.

This is too juicy for the media to ignore for much longer: a former VP candidate and two-time presidential candidate who received glowing media coverage has a child with a woman who is not his wife while his wife suffers from cancer. The wife also was trotted out to defend the candidate and a portion of his campaign was centered around the tribulations of his ailing wife. Americans can understand this a hell of a lot easier than his "two Americas" rhetoric and will want to read every salacious detail because we love scandal in the US.

Instead of "two Americas," it appears we have the two lives of John Edwards and they're about to collide in stunning fashion.

Update: Read Ann for more.

Sunday News & Notes

Interesting stories from around the Net:

A lonely voice tries to tell the MSM that they are spiting themselves by not covering the John Edwards/Rielle Hunter story.

The Democrats have handed the GOP a winner of an issue if they would grab it. Florida is a battlground state and McCain could sew it up if he hammered this issue repeatedly and daily.

Al-Qaeda confirms we did indeed put a Hellfire missile up their chemical and bio weapons experts ass. Sweet. Too bad the rumors of Zawahiri's liquidation appear to be false.

US out of the UN and the UN out of the US? I've been saying that for five and a half years at this site.

Still No US Media Reports About Edwards' Affair

The Sunday Times of London takes up the John Edwards/Rielle Hunter affair story:

The National Enquirer may publish photographs corroborating Edwards’s presence at the hotel this weekend. A reporter for The Washington Post said yesterday: “To be quite honest, we’re waiting to see the pictures. That said, Edwards is no longer an elected official and he is not running for office now. Don’t expect wall-to-wall coverage.”

No, why would we expect "wall-to-wall" coverage of a former Senator and two-time presidential candidate caught in an affair while his cancer-stricken wife stays at home and suffers? The media ran with a story about John McCain's supposed indiscretions with no sources but this story with witnesses and numerous sources gets no play at all.

We've come to expect this from the American media and they could get away with it until the last few years but no more. How incredibly sad that the National Enquirer is now a more credible news source than the NY Times and Washington Post? Read the blockquote above: The WaPo admits that even if they see pictures of Silky with his hand the cookie jar, they aren't going to run it on the front page regardless of the news worthiness.

This is pure and simple collusion by the media that would ignite a fire storm and congressional hearings were it to happen in, say, the oil or tobacco industries. The political left screams for the return of the Fairness Doctrine yet when they have the opportunity--and I would say duty--to report a hard news story about a liberal, they balk.

The slow decline of American media continues apace with steady and precipitous declines in ad revenue. They blame the Internet, Craig's List, etc, but all they have to do is look over the pond to Britain and see that newspapers can thrive if they choose to either play fair or at least admit their collective bias and write from that angle.

Lastly, this is the type of story that Americans can't get enough of. It has all the components that draw readers as I can attest by the hits I've received from people Googling "Edwards Affair" or some other search terms akin to that. It has a high-profile politico, an ill, loyal wife, a pretty mistress, a love child, late-night rendevous' and a presidential race. You couldn't make it up.

If I were a shareholder of the NY Times or WaPo, I'd be screaming for them to start covering this story and do it "wall-to-wall" because it would bring in much-needed revenue. Instead, ideology once again trumps profits and that my friends is the left-wing media in a microcosm.

The Edwards Story is Breaking Out

Granted, in small amounts but progress is being made:

A hotel security guard told FOXNews.com he intervened this week between a man he identified as former Sen. John Edwards and tabloid reporters who chased down the former presidential hopeful after what they're calling a rendezvous with his mistress and love child.

The Beverly Hilton Hotel guard said he encountered a shaken and ashen-faced Edwards — whom he did not immediately recognize — in a hotel men's room early Tuesday morning in a literal tug-of-war with reporters on the other side of the door.

"What are they saying about me?" the guard said Edwards asked.

"His face just went totally white," the guard said, when Edwards was told the reporters were shouting out questions about Edwards and Rielle Hunter, a woman the National Enquirer says is the mother of his child.

Even funnier still, the Philly Daily News reports that it happened right under the noses of some serious media bigwigs so it proves either they are stupid or they're covering up. My guess is a little of both:

As Daily News TV critic Ellen Gray informed us from the Television Critics Association summer press tour, what makes the Beverly Hilton choice even more bizarre is that the place was crawling with reporters Monday night for the TCA, including newspaper people from the New York Times, USA Today the New York Daily News, the Washington Post, and us.

My guess is that by 2:00 AM, the TCA people were pretty well hammered. Anyway, the Daily News does their best to make it a non-story but they at least started reporting something about it.

The John Edwards Affair Media Coverup Collusion

When John Edwards (AKA Silky Pony) first ran for the presidency in 2004, the media showered him with praise because he was the nice, reasonably young, good looking southern Democrat who is rich and has a nice family. When he decided to run in 2008, they showered him with praise (although not as much since the new flavor of the year--Obama--is running) because he was the nice candidate who cared about the poor and was just so...nice.

When it was revealed that Elizabeth Edwards had cancer, the media portrayed John as the doting husband who stood by her side. Personally, I thought he was a scumbag for not ending his campaign so she could rest at home with her kids. I further thought he increased his scumbag quotient by sending her out to fight his battles anytime anyone said anything remotely negative about old Silky. A real man there.

Now, the story has changed: Edwards has been caught by a tabloid paper visiting the alleged mother of his young child in a hotel room late at night. The media has grown quiet about protecting the former Senator and instead reports absolutely nothing. The fact that sex scandals have been reported with far scanter evidence is making it clearer by the day that this is collusion in its most brazen form by the MSM. They have reported nothing of this even though it has all the essential elements: a two-time presidential candidate, a love child, an attractive other woman, a cancer-stricken wife at home with the kids while the Senator meets for a tryst in a hotel late at night and eyewitness reporting that the man was caught leaving by a side door. Put it all together and it's powerful stuff. Except Edwards is a Democrat and one who would definitely serve in an Obama cabinet should that horrid scenario come to fruition.

When you have libs asking these questions, perhaps we have the clearest indication of media bias seen in years.

The Dem Veep Stakes

It's coming down to a good candidate (if you're a Dem) and a horrid candidate:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former Sens. John Edwards and Sam Nunn are on a list of potential running mates for Democrat Barack Obama, a congresswoman said Thursday, one day after she met with the team Obama has reviewing possible candidates.

Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, D-Mich., who leads the Congressional Black Caucus, said members of her caucus asked her to forward the names of Edwards and Nunn when she met Wednesday with Obama's vice presidential search team. The team, Caroline Kennedy and Eric Holder, indicated the two were on the list.

Nunn is a great choice and would give the campaign gravitas it doesn't currently have. Remember the media "gravitas-fest" when W. chose Cheney?

Anyway, Nunn is way more centrist (in fact, his retirement from the Senate was said to be because of the shift by the party to the hard left) than Obama and has a solid foreign policy background. His views were interesting to say the least going against Clinton on gays in the military but voting against the first Gulf War. He would provide a balance to Obama. His lack of charisma could be a hindrance but the messianic following of Obama would overcome that. Nunn is also from Georgia so Obama may pick up a few states in the South.

Edwards on the other hand would be the ideal candidate if Obama wanted to lose. He didn't help in 2004--although Kerry was also a lame candidate so he only made the campaign even sorrier. He would be a great pick if Obama wanted someone as liberal as he is but Edwards could never help with the South as Obama would hope. There's still a serious conservative streak south of the Mason-Dixon line and Edwards just comes off as to much of a pussy to win them over. He allows his cancer-stricken wife to fight his battles and that's unacceptable to the blue collar folks in the South and Midwest.

Here's hoping Obama opts for Edwards and McCain were smart enough to pick someone like Alaska governor Sarah Palin.

Note to the AP, send me a friggin' bill for using your paragraphs above you cheap bastards.

Socialized Medicine: A Doctors View

A must read by GM Roper on the nightmare awaiting us should we go the socialized medicine route:

I don't know about you, but this household doesn't have an extra $455,000.00. Grow up America, if you want to keep the high quality health care that we have overall then we absolutely have to reform government and get the big spenders out of office! Until then, if the Democrats take over health care, I won't get any of it except maybe a corner to die in. and if you are young, you might not even get that much.

The Obama, Clinton and Edwards plans would increase the cost of healthcare dramatically. Believe me when I say that Edwards in particular would sell out everything for his law practicing brethren and every single quality doctor would say "screw it" and either become researchers or not accept the national medical coverage. We will become England where you now have two classes of people: those who can afford to go to private hospitals and pay cash for good, quality medical care or you can go to the NHS office and get substandard care and wait months for diagnostic testing such as an MRI.

While in Florida last week, we had drinks with a couple from Ontario, Canada and they were very defensive about their healthcare system (and everything else about Canada). When I explained that I can go to the doctor and get an MRI today, they seemed shocked. In Canada it would take a month. With that in mind, I'll keep paying for health insurance thank you.

The Issue That Was To Define the Campaigns, Hasn't

Think back to the beginning of the latest election cycle--I think it was January 21, 2005 if I'm not mistaken. Remember what issues were forecast as being major parts of the debate: Iraq, the War on Terror and perhaps a far third, taxes.

Fast forward to the present and note that the Iraq war and the GWOT are secondary issues to immigration and other domestic concerns. Adam Nagourney noticed as well and as is his wont, gets it exactly wrong:

Even though polls show that Iowa Democrats still consider the war in Iraq the top issue facing the country, the war is becoming a less defining issue among Democrats nationally, and it has moved to the back of the stage in the rush of campaign rallies, town hall meetings and speeches that are bringing the caucus competition to an end. Instead, candidates are being asked about, and are increasingly talking about, the mortgage crisis, rising gas costs, health care, immigration, the environment and taxes.

The shift suggests that economic anxiety may be at least matching national security as a factor driving the 2008 presidential contest as the voting begins.

How can one write for a leading daily fish wrap and be so spectacularly misguided? I'm being facetious of course as that particular quality seems to be a requirement at the Times.

It's not that economic fears are growing as the economy is pretty solid except in the minds of those who write for the NY Times. No, it's that the war in Iraq has improved to the point that the Dems can't use it as an issue anymore. Believe me, if things were going as badly as they were a year ago, it would be front and center in every single Democratic debate and they would be screaming that they were the only ones who could extricate us.

The fact that it is not an issue in the campaigns says more about the progress than anything else and the fact that the Democrats fail to discuss it says much about them as well. The American populace knows full-well that we are now succeeding and the esteemed candidates representing the party of Jefferson are doing our men and women in the military a strong disservice by not at the very least praising them and General Petraeus for the complete 180 that we've accomplished. But to do so would mean that they would admit that President Bush was right and they were wrong and that's not about to happen.

Nagourney alludes to the fact that things are improving but in an offhand way:

Part of the shift appears to stem from the reduction in violence in Iraq after President Bush’s decision to send more troops there last year.

No Adam, the shift not only appears but is a direct result of Bush pushing the surge. It was a tough political play at a time when the Democrats were feeling their collective oats after retaking the House and Senate but Bush pushed it through and it has been to this point successful resulting in the continued reduction of troop levels.

The war in Iraq and its importance in the greater War on Terror should be a central point in the general election and should be pushed hard by whomever the GOP nominee is. Credit should always be taken for successes and if the Dem candidate is anyone but Hillary, the negativity that was shown by the donkey party should be pounded home on a daily basis.

One last note, does anyone else find John Edwards' statements about cutting and running within ten months of his taking office to be a sign of his poor grasp of the tenor of the country?

Update: Thanks Glenn for the link and catching that typo!

Update 2: A Contrarian view here and a somewhat more passionate response to Nagourney here.

Edwards' Bimbo Eruption?

Now this is getting interesting.

The National Enquirer (I know but they've broken stories the MSM would never reveal) reported that Rielle Hunter, a campaign staffer for Edwards, is pregnant and that Edwards is the father of the child. Hunter supposedly denies it and says another staffer who is married with children is in fact the father. This on a day when Edwards gained the Iowa lead in at least one poll. I don't think Iowans will vote for a man if he cheated on his cancer-stricken wife and knocked up another woman.

Is this another case of someone falling on the sword to protect a Dem candidate from destroying himself? How involved are the Clinton's since they have well-known ties to the Enquirer and lastly, as a Democrat, does this help or hurt Edwards?

I used the word "reported" above because the story is not loading at the Enquirer site. They either got served with an injunction or voluntarily took it down. Who knows, but the fact that Drudge teased it can not be good for the Edwards campaign and in my opinion only helps Obama. Drudge has it at his site as "developing" yet Doug Ross has a screen shot at the link above of the article so it must've been posted then taken down I guess.

Going Green May Cost Dems

Of the myriad issues that affect Americans in their every day lives, environmentalism is not among the top tier. Think of the things that affect your voting patterns--economy, terrorism (and the war against), taxes and health care are probably at the top of your list. If you have a good job, taxes are at a practical rate (never low enough in my opinion) and you have health care, you'll typically vote for the party that has given you these things.

Now what if a candidate said on the stump that he wants to institute changes that would cost you money in the short term, may have an adverse effect on the economy and could potentially lead to a sharp upturn in the unemployment rate so that we could see benefits in 30-years. Would you vote for that candidate? Of course you wouldn't and John Edwards is staking alot of his campaign on just such an approach:

According to energy expert Tracy Terry's analysis of a recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology study, under the scenario of an 80 percent reduction in emissions from 1990 levels, by 2015 Americans could be paying 30 percent more for natural gas in their homes and even more for electricity. At the same time, the cost of coal could quadruple and crude oil prices could rise by an additional $24 a barrel.

"I'd be the first to tell you: This is not necessarily the greatest political calculation," Edwards acknowledged in an interview, adding that audiences tend to pause before expressing their support when he lays out his climate plan. "No matter what the politics are, there's such a moral responsibility to address this issue. We've got to do it."

The problem that the Dems have on this issue is that the majority of the country does not consider global warming to the major issue the Democratic party as a whole does. In spite of the media onslaught these last five years and the constant echo of Al Gore's doomsday prophecies, the country doesn't buy into the fact that this is a settled issue. I've talked to global warmingist's who espouse the Gore rhetoric and when I ask them how they think they sell something that may never happen or may be occurring naturally while simultaneously speaking out against a real and present threat--Islamo-fascist terrorism--the get perplexed and stutter alot. They find it hard to believe that people would actually not believe global warming is a natural phenomenon and not man made as it is so deeply ingrained into the liberal psyche at this point.

The fact that the GOP candidates are ridiculing the donks says to me that their internal polling has shown clearly that it is not the issue the Democrat field wants or thinks it to be.

Edwards is a liberal masquerading as a populist. However, you will never win a presidential campaign by telling people that they have to cut back on electrical use, driving and will have to pay more to boot--especially when you live in a huge mansion and drive an SUV. Edwards is saying in an ambiguous way that you will be taxed for helping the environment even though it won't be referred to as such. That isn't going to fly.

As in WWII, the American public will sacrifice for a war, they will never sacrifice simply because Al Gore and John Edwards are constantly crying wolf.

The Edwards Tax and Spend Nightmare

The populist candidate just can't help himself. John Edwards proposes the following should the planets align, pigs fly, the Cubs win the World Series, the St. Louis Rams win a game and he get elected President:

John Edwards says if he's elected president, he'll institute a New Deal-like suite of programs to fight poverty and stem growing wealth disparity. To do it, he said, he'll ask many Americans to make sacrifices, like paying higher taxes.

Edwards, a former Democratic senator from North Carolina, says the federal government should underwrite universal pre-kindergarten, create matching savings accounts for low-income people, mandate a minimum wage of $9.50 and provide a million new Section 8 housing vouchers for the poor. He also pledged to start a government-funded public higher education program called "College for Everyone."

This nothing new from the man who pays $1,250 for a haircuts and lives in a house the size of a small town. It just looks so damn frightening seeing it all in one place. Let's pick this apart, shall we?

First the universal pre-K proposal: how does he plan on this program working? Would the government pay the day care providers and would the pre-K teachers have to meet education criteria and fall under the unions? Would there be price caps on what day care centers can charge? Any way it is laid out, it would lead to mass confusion, much higher taxes and scams like this country has never seen that will make welfare and Medicare fraud look like child's play.

Matching savings accounts sounds like the most appealing of the plans until you peel away the first few layers and see just how farcical it is. The plan is not shown in detail in any of the sites I've found so I'll just have to address the theory behind the plan. Think of the normal lower class or lower middle class family; they have debt, they have multiple jobs and they have little leeway with what they spend the money they earn on. Let's say they put away $20 a week or $80 a month and the government matches that, that's $160 a month or $1,920 per year. Add to that the small return on investment and you'll see maybe a $2,000 layaway for the year. With the tight government controls of vestment and withdrawing the money, it would be infinitely wiser to just reduce taxes and let the people do with the money what they want. Of course that runs anathema to liberal thinking because in their fetid minds, the government always knows what to do with your money better than you do.

As for the increase in minimum wage to $9.50, Edwards fails to take into account what it costs a small business owner to run a business already. Insurance, workers compensation and taxes leave little room for anything else to cut into profits. Adding an additional $2.00 to every employees hourly pay will destroy small business faster than Wal-Mart or Home Depot ever could. The subsequent rise in prices will damage the economy as people will buy less thus forcing business owners to cut employees. It's a prescription for disaster.

The Section 8 issue is liberal code for integration and it will result in exactly the opposite of what liberals want. The Section 8 issue has resulted in destroying neighborhoods rather than adding diversity. Section 8 lessors know how to game the system and the resultant costs are enormous. It's a hot-button issue and some changes were proposed in 2004 when the cost was pegged at $19.4-billion. Edwards plan would most-likely double that cost.

Finally, the most populist of his populist plans: "College for everyone!" How in hell are we going to pay for that? I have an idea, ask every liberal professor in academia to take a fifty per cent pay cut and actually teach instead of push their liberal agenda. If that were to happen, the cost of higher education would drop dramatically and the students who graduate will have a competitive advantage against those who emigrate here. It's a win-win. Also, drop the ridiculous Title IX garbage so that schools can compete athletically in men's sports that draw viewers and ad revenue. I know it's a novel idea but perhaps one whose time has come.

Edwards doesn't stand a chance; first because he's run a horrible campaign and second because, like Walter Mondale who preceded him, Americans don't want higher taxes and anyone who says on the stump that they'll raise them is crushed once the voting begins. Add Edwards' universal health care plan and you have the makings of a spending spree that would make President Bush blush.

Michael Moore, Healthcare and Lies

The Times of London picks apart the Michael Moore mockumentary Sicko for his complete white-washing of the British healthcare system. A taste:

Sicko, like all Moore’s films, is about an important and emotive subject – healthcare. He contrasts the harsh and exclusive system in the US with the European ideal of universal socialised medicine, equal and free for all, and tries to demonstrate that one is wrong and the other is right. So far, so good; there are cases to be made.

Unfortunately Sicko is a dishonest film. That is not only my opinion. It is the opinion of Professor Lord Robert Winston, the consultant and advocate of the NHS. When asked on BBC Radio 4 whether he recognised the NHS as portrayed in this film, Winston replied: “No, I didn’t. Most of it was filmed at my hospital [the Hammersmith in west London], which is a very good hospital but doesn’t represent what the NHS is like.”

The entire essay picks Moore's film apart piece by lying piece.

Interestingly, some additional info also came out today concerning just how screwed up the NHS is:

Record numbers of Britons are travelling abroad for medical treatment to escape the NHS - with 70,000 patients expected to fly out this year.

And by the end of the decade 200,000 "health tourists" will fly as far as Malaysa (sic) and South Africa for major surgery to avoid long waiting lists and the rising threat of superbugs, according to a new report.

This is a vision of the future that Hillary Clinton and John Edwards want to see. A system of healthcare in which lesser-educated doctors will be imported and the standard of care will fall dramatically. Those who were contemplating medical school will instead become lawyers, engineers and researchers.

The Democrats as a whole and John Edwards in particular have played the class card non-stop throughout the campaign. If Edwards really wants to see the difference between haves and have-nots, wait until he sees what will happen if a universal healthcare plan ever comes to fruition. Those with the means will continue to see the best doctors at the best hospitals while those who do not will receive substandard care, if they receieve any care at all.

Edwards' plan would bankrupt the nation and result in an additional tax on business thereby acting as a drain on business creation and expansion and result in a massive hit on the economic actvitiy that keeps this nation humming.

Our current system is not perfect and needs adjustments such as radical tort reform (many states are acting on this crucial issue as we speak) and better patient options for reduced cost. However, even the poorest among us receive the best healthcare the world has to offer from highly-trained doctors and nurses who receive excellent pay for what they do. In one fell swoop, that will all go away and the dream of morons like Michael moore will be exposed as a nightmare for the rest of us.

The War as Political Issue

Over the weekend, we saw the venerable Washington Post grudgingly admit that yes, we are making steady and measurable progress in Iraq and the strategies we've implemented are indeed working. General Petraeus has executed plans that have quelled much of the violence, turned the average Iraqi against al-Qaeda and is working to bridge the gap between Sunni and Shia. The good news is evident and the MSM will have to portray it as such although with the same scepticism noted in the WaPo piece.

Let's suppose that the good in Iraq continues into next year, what will be the political ramifications? The majority of the Democrat field have beased their campaigns on opposition to the war and the President's handling of it. The only Dem to support the war effort even tepidly is Hillary and she's simply doing that as a hedge. On the GOP side, most have supported the war effort with the glaring exception of wannabe candidate Ron Paul (The Keeper of the Constitution!). They've supported the troops and Petraeus' actions even at the risk of harming themselves should they win the nomination. If events continue as they have in Iraq and the American public further senses the momentum and begins to believe that the war is in fact winnable, what effect would that have on the various campaigns?

On the donk side, John Edwards has made much of the fact that Hillary has never "apologized" for voting to use force against Iraq while he has. He's ran on a platform of anti-war and has given a big, fat kiss to the hard left in hopes of garnering support. Barack Obama has been anti-war from the beginning supposedly as has Americas own Nobel Laureate, Al Gore. Now that they've staked out positions that are not ambiguous in the least, should the tenor of the public change, they would be caught in a position that would leave them wide-open for criticism. A GOP ad campaign painting the Dems as lacking trust in our military would write itself and the public would largely believe it.

The GOP candidates have supported our war effort with Giuliani, McCain, Romney and Thompson all lining up with Petraeus but their criticism of the President has been rough at times. They will have some excellent talking points on the stump should they gain the nomination.

Lastly, President Bush way well be vindicated for his strategy of luring the Jihadi's in to Iraq so we could fight them in one place and keep them out of the U.S. Of course the anti-warriors will never admit that but it would do well for GOP pundits to point out that this strategy has worked quite well. Through the last several years, Bush has been beaten by the liberal canard that his planning was flawed and his concept of luring Islamo-fascist fighters into a battle on our terms was unrealistic. It may well play out that he was exactly right in thinking it was a winnable situation.

The Gore Bandwagon Grows and Grows (Update: Gore Wins!)

As we speak, former VP Al Gore, Jr. is jetting across the North Atlantic (using soy-based fuel?) on what may be a visit with destiny. The Savior of the World is the odds-on favorite to take home the Nobel Peace Prize for his outstanding work in saving the world from a malady that is not even proven to exist. The Nobel Committee--that august body that once presented both the worlds worst terrorist, Yassir Arafat and the worst President in American history, Jimmy Carter the same award--appears to have deemed Gore's work of fiction more important to peace on the planet than the brave monks in Burma who are dying at the hands of an oppressive junta, Polish Holocaust heroine Irene Sendler who helped save 2,500 Jews and other people who made real contributions to peace in the world. Remember, this is the same group that gave Jimmah the award to spite Bush so it's esteem has long been eroded.

Today there's numerous stories pushing Gore to run for President again (including this laughable, full-on ass kissing by The Hill Blog). I for one say "go for it, Al!". I yearn for those days when the words "lock box" were uttered by you. I need to hear that dry monotone that makes Ben Stein (Ferris Beuller's teacher) sound downright giddy for hours in a debate. I want to hear you try once again to spin how your Dad didn't really vote against the Civil Rights Act and was an avowed racist. Please Al, I need you to run. Besides Al, we need a new invention to rival the Internet and since you invented the 'Net, you're the man to invent the next big thing.

I can't wait to see you and Hillary slugging it out, fighting each other for all those illegal campaign contributions. You can hit the Buddhist temples, she can go right to the reimbursing bundlers. It will be epic. You an Hillary both learned the business at the feet of the master (except when Monica had that spot but I digress) and it would be highly entertaining to see you go hard at each other while "Silky Pony" Edwards and Barack Obama fall by the wayside.

Wait and see the eruption on the far left should Gore win the award named after the inventor of dynamite. The far-left moonbats will back Gore 100% forcing Hillary that way and setting up a true choice on America's future. Buckle in folks, it's going to be a fun ride.

Update (10/12/07 1531): The Gorebot wins and the last remaining vestige of esteem that was still attached to the award is flushed down the toilet. Congratulations former Veep Gore.

Silky Would Talk To Iran

My guess is he would send Elizabeth, she fights all his hard battles anyway.

But the "Hero of the Poor" would talk Iran into halting production of nuclear weapons:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards says, if elected next year, his administration would open direct talks with Iran to try to contain Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

Edwards proposes an abrupt shift in Bush administration policy toward Iran in an article he wrote for Foreign Affairs magazine's upcoming issue, saying he would boost U.S. diplomacy worldwide if elected in November 2008.

I'm sure the the Ayatollah's would be very interested in what a man who pays $1,250 for a haircut has to say and would immediately dismantle any nuclear capabilities they currently have in production. Or not.

By the way, juxtapose what Rudy and Silky say in the same magazine.

And finally, it never gets old runing this clip: